How do life sciences cite social sciences? Characterizing the volume and trajectory of citations

Author:

Zhou Hongyu1ORCID,Sun Beibei23ORCID,Guns Raf1ORCID,Engels Tim C. E.1ORCID,Huang Ying234ORCID,Zhang Lin234ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), Faculty of Social Sciences University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium

2. Center for Science, Technology & Education Assessment (CSTEA) Wuhan University Wuhan China

3. School of Information Management Wuhan University Wuhan China

4. Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM) and Department of MSI KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Abstract

AbstractSocial sciences are increasingly recognized as significant for building a sustainable world since the social perspective can assist researchers in other fields in navigating public controversy and designing more responsible interaction mechanisms between the natural and social systems. However, the question arises: to what extent do natural sciences rely on social science research in their studies? Examining life science publications from seven PLoS journals, this paper attempts to characterize the volume and trajectory of citations from life sciences to social sciences. We explore three core questions: To what extent do life sciences cite social sciences? What actors in the life sciences are citing social sciences? Which actors in the social sciences are being cited? Our analysis estimates social sciences influence 15%–19% of life science publications, contributing to 1.1%–1.5% of references in 2018. Social science citers are found across peripheral and central topics of life science disciplines. Cited social science publications exhibit various levels of interdisciplinarity and achieve the greatest citation impact among peers. Citations to social sciences are prevalent in both theoretically and methodologically oriented sections. We show empirically the increasing impact of social sciences on the development of the life sciences.

Funder

Vlaamse regering

National Natural Science Foundation of China

Publisher

Wiley

Reference62 articles.

1. Brain Imaging-An Introduction to a New Approach to Studying Media Processes and Effects

2. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

3. Bertin M. &Atanassova I.(2014).A study of lexical distribution in citation contexts through the IMRaD standard. BIR@ECIR.

4. The invariant distribution of references in scientific articles

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3